Benzene Attorney Blog

Ethanol vehicles pose significant risk to health, new study finds (2007)
Ethanol is widely touted as an eco-friendly, clean-burning fuel. But if every vehicle in the United States ran on fuel made primarily from ethanol instead of pure gasoline, the number of respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations likely would increase, according to a new study by Stanford University atmospheric scientist Mark Z. Jacobson. His findings are published in the April 18 online edition of the journal Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T).
"Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution," said Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering. "But our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage."
"We found that E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others—formaldehyde and acetaldehyde," Jacobson said. "As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline. However, in some parts of the country, E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog."
Inhaling ozone—even at low levels—can decrease lung capacity, inflame lung tissue, worsen asthma and impair the body’s immune system, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The World Health Organization estimates that 800,000 people die each year from ozone and other chemicals in smog.
"In our study, E85 increased ozone-related mortalities in the United States by about 200 deaths per year compared to gasoline, with about 120 of those deaths occurring in Los Angeles," Jacobson said. "These mortality rates represent an increase of about 4 percent in the U.S. and 9 percent in Los Angeles above the projected ozone-related death rates for gasoline-fueled vehicles in 2020."
E85 is likely to increase the annual number of asthma-related emergency room visits by 770 and the number of respiratory-related hospitalizations by 990," Jacobson said. "Los Angeles can expect 650 more hospitalizations in 2020, along with 1,200 additional asthma-related emergency visits."
The deleterious health effects of E85 will be the same, whether the ethanol is made from corn, switchgrass or other plant products, Jacobson noted. "Today, there is a lot of investment in ethanol," he said. "But we found that using E85 will cause at least as much health damage as gasoline, which already causes about 10,000 U.S. premature deaths annually from ozone and particulate matter. The question is, if we’re not getting any health benefits, then why continue to promote ethanol and other biofuels?
This ES&T study was partially supported by NASA.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/april18/ethanol-041807.html

The people who benefit are the people who get the subsidies. They are the same people that own the politicians. Which is why we need to get different politicians elected, but it is hard to unseat an incumbent. Just look at the past election. We know for a fact that many, many house members should have been ousted because of their failure on the economic crisis but few were replaced. Everyone seems to believe it was someone else’s politician to blame not their own. So, ethanol subsidies will continue, Fannie and Freddie won’t have to change bad business practices. Acorn will also be subsidized by public money and next election we will have the same fiasco.

Hopefully the auto industry will be allowed to go into bankrupcy, so they can end their failed business practices. If we bail them out they will continue to hire and use people who are inferior business people.

9 Responses to “Why do we continue to subsidize ethanol when we know that there is no benefit?”